Okay. Uh, it it is now it is now uh 9:33 a.m. So, chair, I guess we're going to start the meeting now. >> Okay. We'll call the meeting to order this morning. Um, we'll start off with uh with roll call. Uh, Nick, Yanukica, >> uh, Robert >> here, >> uh, Mel >> here, >> and I know Donna just stepped out and myself, uh, Dale. Uh, are there any members of the committee that have a conflict of interest with any applications today? Yes. >> Can you turn your mic on, please? Thanks. I have a conflict of interest for application B 202600388 and 00396. >> Okay. When those applications come forward, you can step out. That's great. Um and we need ratification of the minutes of the last meeting. Is there a mover? Mel seconder. Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, that motion is passed. >> Apologies. Who seconded that motion? Uh, >> so that was uh >> Robert moved. >> Mel and Robert. >> Mel. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, with that we'll proceed to the first and again this was the October 29, 2026 committee of adjustment meeting. We convened at 9:33 a.m. today. And just noting that Sebastian is uh um is is absent. Um, [clears throat] so now the first application, it's now 9:35 a.m. The first application to be heard is a minor variance application, A2026 00350, 33 Sanford Avenue, South Hamilton. Owner is Platz Holdings Incorporated, J. McCarter. Uh, applicant is the same company and agent is Landwise K. Gillis. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward, please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. Good morning, chair, members of committee, staff, members of public. My name is Caitlyn Gillis, senior planner at Landwise, and we're here on behalf of the landowner and applicant. Um, thank you for the meeting last time for the opportunity to table. We have been able to work with staff and we have reviewed the revised staff report and support the recommendation of approval as amended. Happy to answer any questions, but other than that, thank you. >> Okay. Does committee have any questions on this application? Mel, >> I'll make a motion approve of the amended as amended. >> Moved by Mel, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Um, I believe the next application, it's now 9:36 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application, A2026 00088 653 Barton Street, East Hamilton. The um owner is a numbered company one 01164959 Ontario incorporated Kov Sappa Zub Zubati and then the agent is Deepo Diag Build Genius Incororated. Uh I believe is it uh yes I believe the um development planning staff wanted to uh to speak first through the chair that's that was the case >> uh through the chair Jennifer Katarino area planning manager for the west development team um thank you Justin so this application was recently at the committee of adjustment Um, and there were concerns from the committee that staff took back and considered some options. Um, we're at we're in a position where our comments stand as written. However, we wanted to present an alternative for the committee to consider when evaluating this application. So, um, in working with transportation planning staff, development planning is comfortable, um, suggesting a recommendation of approval with the application of a condition. And the condition could be worded something like this, that the owner enter into an off-site parking agreement with surrounding properties in accordance with section 5.1 of the zoning bylaw. um sorry but of zoning bylaw number uh 05200 um to the satisfaction of the director of transportation planning and in clearing that condition the applicant would have to supply all the documentation for all the agreements that they have in place with the surrounding um establishments, businesses, places of worship, all of their arrangements to the director of transportation planning and they will evaluate to see if it's sufficient. um and they'll clear the condition and the um medical clinic can advance at that point. So there would still be another checkpoint for staff to ensure there is parking available for the medical clinic um with the application of the condition. So um happy to answer any questions but wanted to provide that alternative for um the committee to consider. I have one question on the parking. The conversations you've had in the agreement you just mentioned, does that include the uh barrierfree parking or handicap parking? So through the chair we have uh mentioned this as an issue and through the parking agreements additional accessible parking can also be identified in the parking lots where the parking will be provided and a few of those spaces or more of those spaces can be accessible. On the accessible front, we also wanted to mention that the amendments that will be made, I believe it's on Earl um Street at the corner where the loading spaces will be, there is some opportunity to make one of those an accessible space as well. Again, it won't be dedicated to the medical clinic, but it would help the area and also be available for medical clinic um visitors as well. [clears throat] Since the staff are satisfied with the arrangements they've done with the uh applicant, I'll make a motion to approve. Sorry. >> Sorry. Through the chair. Did we want to Yeah, planning staff spoke first. Did we want to see if anyone else I apologize. Apologize for interrupting. Yes. Um just just returning to through the chair. Um to to to the hear just just our regular procedure process relating to hearing applications. Uh so this was 653 Barton Street East, Hamilton. Um development planning staff had requested to speak first. Um just returning now. Uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Whether here in council chambers or on WebEx on the WebEx platform. Okay. Uh seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward. Uh please provide your name and you have uh five minutes to speak. Uh good morning chair and the members of the committee. Thank you for hearing us again today. My name is Deepak and I'm I'm the authorized agent for the owner. I would like to like thank uh the planning staff for like listen to to our situation here. Uh one thing which I would like to add here like our first floor medical office which was got approved it'll be it'll be operational by next Monday and we totally agree uh in agreement with like planning staff suggestions. So we we'll we will we'll provide like uh we'll provide like the agreement like as and when it is required. So we would request committee of adjustment uh committee uh to grant us a conditional approval for application. >> Okay, Robert, >> I'll make a motion to approve as per staff's comments with the uh with the condition that was quoted. >> Okay. Is there a seconder? Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved with the addition of that. >> Yes. [snorts] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, next we're moving on to [clears throat] um, so those were both uh, just noting those are both previously tabled or previously deferred applications. So now we're moving on uh, to to other uh, new applications. So, it is now 9:43 a.m. We have a consent and a related uh minor variance application. And the the committee's practice here is that both of them would be heard together. So, the first is a consent application. It's a B2026 00115 163 Beach Boulevard, Hamilton. Owner is G. Danu. applicant is Cadex Design Limited A axle rod and then the related minor variant is A202600116. Uh same address, same owner and same applicant. Uh we had some interested parties here. I'm just going to check and see uh they wanted to speak. Terry Lan. Terry Lan, are you here on either in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay. And then next we had Sage Sai. Sage Sai, are you here? Council Chambers or WebEx. Okay. Um Okay. I don't see them either. And then we had another person, Lisa Herps. And I believe they just wanted to be provided uh uh written correspondence on once a decision has been rendered uh on this application. Okay. With that, was there any other members of the public wish to speak on this application either here in council chambers or on WebEx 163 Beach Boulevard, Hamilton. Okay. Uh seeing none, I will ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. Yes. Uh Joe Dome, 133 Torresdale Avenue. Uh agent for the owner. Uh the proposal is to create two lots for a semi- detached building with um one secondary unit in each dwelling. The owner and his brother plan to live in um in these uh dwellings with their families. Uh they have three kids each. Um the application had been previously tabled uh to allow for uh discussions with staff has now been revised uh in accordance with staff recommendations. Uh the proposed building has been narrowed so the uh the sideyard setbacks um now meet the uh the 1.7 m bylaw. Um it was also moved uh farther back from the streetscape to 7.92 and 7.93 uh meters respectively uh exceeding the uh the minimum requirement and increasing the landscaped area. Uh there are now three variances requested. Uh variance number one refers to the proposed uh three stories and a height of 11.2 uh meters whereas the as of right is two and a half stories and 11 meters um in height. impact here is mitigated by the fact that uh the proposed um variance is minor considering that the setbacks uh either meet or exceed the requirements um and the height the height overages uh close to the allowable uh height and staff have assessed that that form uh including privacy overlook and streetscape impacts and identified three-story dwellings at 91 and uh across the street at 174 uh Beach Boulevard. Um their support addresses uh the third story as well as the uh the increase in the height and uh variance 2 refers to proposed lot width of uh 15.2 m uh for a semi. Now each lot would have approximately 460 m of land and a rear yard of about 28 m. So these are uh deep residential lots with a substantial um outdoor space and uh staff has assessed their uh their frontage scale in relationship to the neighboring uh development and concluded that the severance conforms to the official plan and represents compatible uh residential intensification and um uh drainage um is important here. Uh the conditions require a registered um uh consent agreement, grading and uh servicing plans um and a storm water management brief. Um they also provide for securities and city review and development engineering uh does recommend uh conditional approval. So they have taken um into account um the uh the drainage conditions um and uh and a um um grading engineer has been um retained um to uh to adequately demonstrate the uh the drainage conditions on the lot. Um uh parking is shown within the uh garages u and um uh no parking variance is requested here. So uh um the um there is um a trans I believe transportation planning uh recommends approval [gasps] and um overall um we feel the application is quite u minor and um reasonable in nature and I I would be happy to answer any uh questions you have. >> Okay. Thank you. Does committee have any questions on this application? Robert, >> I don't any questions. Those staff recommend that variances 1 to three be approved subject to the proposed conditions as they maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning bylaw and they appear to be minor in nature and are all desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. Um, it's a pretty good summation that the staff gave. Looking at the surrounding area, the the variance in the height request is very minimal and um the four the variances meet the four tests of a minor variant. So I'll make a motion to approve with the conditions and notes. >> Okay. Moved by Robert, second by Yukon. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> And through the chair, that was for both the consent and minor variance applications. for both applications. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. And just just to clarify a previous comment I made, um the first two uh applications we heard the previously tabled applications, those are actually the applications from the last meeting that have been brought back to this meeting now. So we do other applications we're going to hear today. They could be uh previously tabled applications, but they may not they may have come back from a later uh committee of adjustment meeting. Okay. Um, moving on. It is now 9:49 a.m. and we have a [clears throat] We have a consent application. It's uh B2026 00282, 59 Byron Avenue, Stony Creek. Owner is N Cleert, P. Clebert and B. John. Applicant is the same three people and the agent is R. Wellen Writer. Um, [snorts] is there any members of the public wish to speak on this application either here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the uh applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. My name is Richard Wenrider. I'm the agent for the owners and um my only purpose of speaking is to just clarify some of the conditions and otherwise everything is accepted. The first thing I want to note is that the there has been an R plan already registered. I'd ask that the decision reflect the R plan and it is number 62-R2224 [clears throat] and I think just to be more accurate in the legal description when we're doing this. The second is there's also been an archaeological study already submitted. um on July 29th because this this had was a previous application that was approved and was had lapsed due had lapsed. So that was submitted as well and accepted if that could be noted as well regarding [clears throat] the service connections. Just a point of clarification if um the there's no issue with applying for the agreement, but it I would like it to be clear that that could be assigned to the new owner of the severed parcel if that's if that is a reasonable request. And then similarly um there has already been a a deposited plan from landsmith regarding the grading and servicing plan and that was accepted previously. I'd just like to ask for confirmation if that could be accepted or if there's something that needs to be updated that that that be identified please. And then there is an engineers plan in the material that um in in the material that's been provided and returned regarding condition number nine. if it's possible that the engineering plan with the detailed um planting or planted trees on there is sufficient to satisfy that condition. If not, then what is there is of course fine as well regarding the registered landscape architect. And as well, I'd like it to be noted that with the previous application, the $10,000 grading security was deposited with the city and it's still with the city. And that is in the um that was file number SC/B-23-30. I'd like that to be noted if that could still if that could then be applied toward this process here. And as well the um for number three the there was an administration fee that was paid previously if that could be applied here as well. That that is all I have. >> Okay. Can you run through on the conditions which numbered conditions you want? >> Okay. So number one would be the the registered R plan being 62 um 62-R2224 that's already been done and I would ask that just the legal description be reflected to be that as well. Number three is where there's a the administration fee that was paid previously in the prior um application. Number six would be the one to deal with the ability to assign the the um any agreement or any obligations to the new owner as long as it's within the timeline. just to to be able to assign that if if the owner current owner has applied for it. And I I guess on that as well, I'd like it to be clear that it's just this is just for the purpose in terms of the connections, just for the connections only, not to establish new completely new lines there. Okay. And then again, the $10,000 that's referenced in number six was paid in SC/B-2330 that the grading and servicing plan that was previously submitted on June 5, 2024 by Lansmith, which was accepted at the time, continue to be accepted or if there's any updates require required that those be identified, but we've that's already been submitted. And >> sorry, the last one was number nine, just asking if the engineer the um planting detail on the engineers plan the payment of the fee of course was acceptable for that. >> Okay, that's it. Could we have uh staff address his issues? Yeah. >> Um >> so that they can [snorts] make that decision. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Through the chair uh George Benny, senior engineer development engineering. I'll try to address uh most of those questions. Uh with respect to the consent agreement, it will be entered into and registered prior to creation of the new lot. So, it covers the existing property and it's registered on title. With respect to the uh security, the $10,000 security that was previously collected, um I would be comfortable stating that that could be transferred to the uh and and utilized for the new agreement as as long as we confirm that the you know, previous security is not required. [sighs] And um the uh the drawings that were that you referenced that were previously submitted uh prepared by Lansmith, they would need to be resubmitted to us and uh form part of the consent agreement. Um so I'm not I'm not in a position to confirm whether or not we have uh comments on those plans at this point, but again um it's something that we handle through the uh engineering submission as part of the consent agreement. And I think those are all the um items I can address. >> Okay. >> And through the chair um there was some um committee of adjustment uh related conditions from that the CFA section that the agent raised. Um through my colleague who were indicating uh this this appears to be a relication of a previous consent application. Um, unfortunately due to the the cyber incident. This this is one of those uh older files we we don't have immediate access to. So we're not sure if those of not not questioning the applicant or the agent, but we don't have the record that that the condition was actually satisfied. Um, we can look into it further. If the application is approved after staff can go and check and um if potentially those conditions were already satisfied, it's it's possible we may just carry over and and clear those CFA related conditions as well. Thanks. >> Any other committee members with any questions on Robert >> on uh the variance or the condition number six? agrees that the owner must enter into with the city of Hamilton and register a consent agreement. Um, if we were to change that, I was going to say we change it to the proposed new owner of the severed property, but but reading it again, I don't know if that would be the right term with everything else down below. So, I'll take that back. Um any Oh, Nick. Yeah, maybe um [clears throat] what we could do is just add a approve this with the conditions and just add a statement that the conditions requested are waved if the applicant can submit the evidence that they are satisfied. Would that be fair? Okay. Anything else? So, we make a motion to that effect. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the conditions. Um but uh uh a statement waving conditions 1 3 6 7 and nine pending the applicant provides proof that they they've been satisfied previously. Okay. Motion's made, seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Bob, are you opposed? No. Okay. Uh motion's carried. Application is approved. Thank you very much. Okay. See. Okay. It is now 10:00 a.m. and we have a minor variance application A202600395 uh 2330 Fletcher Road Glennbrook owner is S Campen Hampen and the applicant uh is S Campen. Uh, is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent to please step forward. Please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Sean Campen. I'm the owner and applicant. Uh we're looking to convert our uh part of our old 1890s century barn uh into a um additional dwelling unit detached. Obviously, the building is extremely old and the the uh roof height is surpasses what is allowed, which is currently 6 m, but the height is just over 12 m. So, we're looking for permission to be able to carry on with our uh our venture and proceed as we also view this in uh as minor uh as a minor detail. >> Yep. No other comments. >> Well, yeah, I see the neighbors are all in favor of it from what I see here and it's the existing building there. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay, it is now uh 10:02 a.m. and we have a it's a consent and there is a related minor variance application and of course the committee's practice is to hear them both together. Um so it is file number B the consent is B202600388. Uh so again B2026 00388 251 Springside Drive Glenn Brook purchaser is J Rodriguez. Owner is J. Rodriguez applicant is M. Rabbo and agent is M Rabot as well. And then the related minor variance is A202600396. Same address uh same owner, same applicant and agent. And um as noted, member Yanuka, she is due to potential conflict of interest, she has stepped out of the room for this uh for the duration of when this these applications are to be heard. Um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application? either here in council chambers or in or on the WebEx platform okay uh let's see I do note uh through the chair that there was some uh there were some comments provided by development planning staff more recently to uh more recently um I don't know if they wanted to speak on it or not Um if not um I believe it was circulated to the committee. There is a uh condition that has been uh planning is recommending a condition um if it is to be a uh if the uh if the application was to be approved. Um and also cultural heritage staff has indicated that they want to speak first uh if the applicant was intending to uh proceed with the application today. Just wondering is the applicant or agent here for this one. Uh 251 Springside Drive. Are you I think he's on WebEx. I think the agent is there. Uh Matthew Rabau. You could unmute, please. >> Yeah, there we go. Morning committee. >> Um are sorry. Are you intending to proceed today? No, we're looking to defer as per the recommendation from the staff comments. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Sorry. >> Okay. So, we need a motion for tableabling. >> No. Seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion is carried. Application is tabled. >> Thank you, committee. Have a good day. >> If there was any >> Thank you. Uh if there was anyone here in council chambers uh or on WebEx, just to reiterate for these applications, it's a consent and minor variance for 251 Springside Drive, Glennbrook. The application has been tabled or it's been deferred. Um if you want any further uh if you wanted to be notified on any updates on these applications, uh if you're here in council chambers, you can fill out an interested party form here or if you're on WebEx, you can send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca. and to the applicant or agent, we will be uh sending you an email uh immediately after the meeting just to provide you uh direction on how to proceed. Okay. And staff, you can have um member uh Yanuka is returning now. Um okay. Okay. Okay, it is now 10:06 a.m. And next we have a consent application B20 sorry B2026 00210 8155 Chipa Road East Glamro Purchaser is B Kwansoon and Tuansoon Owner is GLP Dungus Incorporated. Applicant is Ashenhurst Noans and Associates Incorporated. Uh H Clance Clans Zakos, apologize if I mispronounced your name. And agent is the same uh as the applicant, the same company. Um just wondering did development planning want to speak on this application. Okay. Okay. After um first um I just wanted to check with the uh the applicant. I know uh again just just making a note the staff are recommending the application be tabled. I just wanted to check with the applicant uh or the agent were they uh if they're here. Are they intending to proceed today? Uh >> yeah, please step up to the podium. We we would like to proceed today um to provide some clarification based on what staff had come back with on Friday because we've done a little additional justification with our presentations. I did want to just correct the record cuz um Brandon, my client, has changed planners since. So, um I am not Harry, but I am Michelle. Um okay. So, >> is it the same company or is it a different uh >> with Nether Planning? >> Okay. Okay. Um maybe Yeah, after the hearing if you could send us an email and then we'll make sure we update. Okay. And your name again was uh >> my name is Michelle Diplock. >> Diplock. Okay. >> Um Okay. Thank you. Actually, just per our p our processes, we do ask first uh if any members of the public wanted to speak. So, just just bear with us first. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Okay. Seeing none, then applicant or agent, please step up uh provide your name and uh you'll have five minutes to speak. All right. Yep. All right. Uh good morning members of the committee. My name is Brandon Kwan and I'm here on behalf of my wife and family to support of my severance application before you today. Uh you will recall I was before you last August with this application where the committee provided direction for me to consult with planning and natural heritage staff to work through their outstanding comments and concern with the severance. Uh since then I have had individual discussions at the counter with staff retained a registered professional planner whom will speak after me and coordinated with transportation staff development planning staff and natural heritage staff to address all of their concerns. I note there is again a recommendation for tableabling but I hope we can address the single remaining concern within today's meeting and my planner will speak on that following me. Um the main reason we're looking to purchase this piece of property is to make the pond and surrounding area part of our existing property. My family has had a connection to this pond for many years. We spent time looking after the area and it's always been something we've enjoyed. My wife is also very passionate about wildlife photography. For the past three years, she's spent a lot of time um photographing or photographing the birds and other wildlife around the pond. Uh in fact, all the wildlife pictures you you're seeing in the presentation were taken by her at the very pond. Um really we really appreciate the natural environment and the wildlife that calls it home. Our goal is to preserve what's already there while continuing to maintain the property and hopefully address some of the mosquito concerns. We're not looking to build anything on this land. There are no plans for any new development and the existing gazebo will be removed. Another benefit of this lot adjustment is that it would straighten out the property lines and give both properties a clearer layout. Um, at the end of the day, we're simply looking to add this piece of land to our property so we can continue caring for it and enjoying it with our family. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sorry, we'll just get the second slide deck up if that's okay. So, those are Brandon's application slides. This is the I guess formal planner presentation part of today's meeting. So if we go to the next slide. So this is the site context. It is located to the north side of Chipoa Road east in Glenbrook. Um the severed lands are zoned E2. Um and the proposed and those lands are proposed to be added to the agricultural zone um which contain an existing single detached dwelling. Um the NPCA is the regulatory authority for the water courses on the site and the new property limit will cross the water course south of the existing plan. NPCA has had no concerns about the proposed severance and source water protection for the city has identified it represents an improvement to the existing situation. Um the benefiting lands will exceed the 0.4 hectare minimum lot area with the final lot area being proposed at 0.757 hectares. Next slide. So, the proposed boundary adjustment removes the existing fragmentation at the south of the property limits of 8 8,173 Chipa Road East, re relocating the fragmentation to a more sustainable location. Um, the proposed lot line adjustment is to bring the recipient lands into compliance with the minimum lot area requirements of the zoning bylaw. And as Brandon mentioned, there is no proposed development on the lands being conveyed. The land is being severed and will remain in the industrial zone um to ensure that no new development uh occurs. Next uh slide. So since the tableabling of the application, we have worked uh very well with staff to address all of the concerns that were identified last um last August. Um so there is no material increase in the fragmentation of the natural heritage features. We have met with Melissa Kitty um the city's natural heritage planner um to identify and work with her on addressing any of those concerns including providing photographs. Um NPCA does not have any concerns as well as source water protection is supportive of um the consent. We did speak with zoning staff and uh looked at the removal of the gazebo to bring the severed lands into compliance with the E2 zoning. Um and by not changing the zone um again we are ensuring that no new development can be can occur at a later date on this land. Um we did connect with transportation staff and a road rightaway widening is not to be required at this time. We are grateful that um transportation staff have addressed um the removal of that condition since the last tableabling of the application. Um that road rightway widening would be deferred to any future development application on the land. And then just the next slide. So there was one additional item that have um has informed staff's uh recommendation for tableabling today. Um and that was identifying a further need for review of policy C of the Royal Hamilton official plan that the land area of the lot adjustment does not exceed the land area required to address the legal or technical issue um and meeting the private water and wastewater servicing policies. We are proposing this severance to increase the lot size to meet the standard residential lot sizes and enable better maintenance of the property and the pond. The reason for exceeding the minimum is to accommodate bringing the entirety of the pond into the same lot to enable safer and more efficient maintenance of the pond. Um, importantly for the long term because planning decisions do have a long ranging impact. We do think that this establishes a regular rectangular lot fabric pattern that is easier from a legal, technical, and administrative perspective for the city and the owners of both properties. So, we think we've addressed that concern. [snorts] In terms of the results, I'll just quickly gloss over it. Next slide. Um, the benefiting lands will exceed the minimum lot area. Um, there's no new development proposed. No increased fragmentation of the feature. Um, and the gazebo removal does actually represent a improvement to the existing natural heritage conditions. Um, next slide. To conclude, we trust that the information we've shared today addresses the outstanding concerns of development planning and share the opinion of source water protection and natural heritage staff that this represents an improvement over existing conditions and can be supported. We are respectfully requesting that the committee approve the consent application today. Um, however, if the committee feels there is more work to do to justify the lot size and pattern, we would recom or we would welcome the table of the application. Um, I did also want to conclude just by thanking staff for their support in the filing of this application and to the members of committee for listening to our presentation. Um, as well as supporting Brandon when he brought this application forward back in August um, as it was his first committee hearing date. Um, so thank you all for that and I'd happy I'd be happy to take any questions. So the parcel of land that will be uh joined onto the applicant's house um that's not being used for agricultural use now, right? Like it's Yeah. >> far from >> So we're not taking away from the use of the um retained land or the land that you're >> Okay. >> Mel staff wanted to have a response to that. Should we hear from them now? >> Yes. Thank you. Uh Tim Froman, area planning manager with development planning. I just wanted to note that the the information presented by the agent here has addressed development planning uh outstanding concerns that were identified in our comments. Um and now staff are able to support this application and we would recommend that it be approved with the conditions as provided. Thank you. >> You're okay with the conditions and what the status recommend? In that case, I'll make a motion to approve for the conditions. >> Okay. Moved by Mal, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. [clears throat] Next. It is now 10:18 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application. A2026 000455 uh 2045 Fletcher Road, Glambrook. Owner is A Mimolo and A Mimolo. Um applicant is the same two people and then the agent is a Mimolo. Is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here in council chambers or on WebEx? I don't know if these people coming forward to speak. >> Hi. Did you want to speak on this application? >> Yes. I'm Amanda Memo. Sorry, I'm short. I need to >> Oh, you're you're the applicant. Yeah. No, first our practice is we ask if there's any any members of the public who wanted to speak. No, that's okay. I don't believe there is. I I did ask I'll just ask again. Any members of the public who wish to speak on this? >> No, no worries. No worries. Any members of the public wish to speak on this application? 2045 Fletcher Road, Glenn Brook, either here in council chambers or on WebEx platform. Okay. Seeing none, then yes, please uh ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning. Amanda Memo, Angelo Mealo. Uh we're owners and applicants. Uh thank you for meeting with us for the variance. Um we've built [snorts] a carport and uh we're here for the variance um application and uh we're happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Mel, >> this is just a carport there out in front and I know the neighbors. I talked to some of them and they're all in favor of it. So, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Moved by Mel, seconded by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. Okay, it's now 10:20 a.m. and we now have a Yep, we do. We now have a minor variance application. A2026 00466 1157 Stone Church Road East Hamilton. Owner is RNG Development Incorporated. Applicant is R. Yousef and agent is Netherly Netherly Planning D. Landry. Um [clears throat] is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application either here in council chambers or on WebEx? Um 1157 Stone Church Road East. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and address. And you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. I'm too short. Good morning. My name is Denise Landry and I'm with Nether Planning. Address 120 Houston Street South Hamilton. I'm also here with the property owner RZswan Yousef. We are seeking a minor variance to permit a limited restaurant component within already approved industrial condominium development. If we could please have the presentation pulled up, that would be great. >> Great. Next slide, please. The property is located on Stone Church Road East, just east of Upper Ottawa Street and is zoned Prestige Business Park or M3. We're requesting permission for principal restaurant uses within a portion of those units to a maximum combined floor area of 525 square meters or approximately only 42% of the development. Importantly, we're not proposing any changes to the approved buildings, parking areas, or overall site layout. Next slide. So, I'd like to explain how we got to this application this morning. Mr. Yousef beside me, behind me, purchased the property in March of 2024 with an existing approved site plan. The site plan has been approved for a number of years. In May of this past year of this year, the city issued a zoning verification report identifying restaurant as a permitted use within the M3 zone. And at the bottom of the screen, you can see a snippet from the zoning verification letter that was received. Relying on this information, my client subsequently entered into an agreements of purchase and sale for units intended to accommodate restaurants. It was only afterward through discussions with city staff that the additional locational requirements were identified. As a result, the owner had [snorts] already made contractual commitments based on the information provided through the city's zoning verification process. And that is what brings us here today. Next slide. From a planning perspective, we believe this is an appropriate location for the proposed restaurants. The property is situated within an established area containing a mix of industrial, commercial, and institutional uses. The official plan specifically contemplates a limited number of restaurants within employment areas where a need can be justified. And I want to emphasize the nature of the proposed businesses. The individual condominium units are relatively small, approximately 126 square meters each, and the proposed restaurant uses are intended to accommodate a range of smaller scale food establishments, including cafes and other restaurant operations. The approved site plan also does not accommodate drive-through facilities. These types of businesses would provide convenient food options for employees, surrounding businesses, and visitors. The proposed restaurants would be clustered within a single approved development along an arterial road rather than creating separate commercial developments throughout the employment area. Next slide. We've reviewed the staff comments and I'd like to briefly address a few of the concerns raised. First, the requested variance is limited to a maximum combined restaurant floor area of 525 square meters. We're not seeking unrestricted restaurant permissions across the entire development. Second, staff have referenced the city's upcoming employment area review. While we recognize the city is reviewing its employment area policies, the outcome of that review remains unknown. This property has had site plan approval for several years, several years, and the owner is seeking to move forward with development based on that approved layout. We believe this sight specific request can be evaluated on its planning merits today without waiting for the outcome of a broader citywide study. It's also I'd also like to note that development engineering has identified no objections to the proposed variance or no other departments aside from planning. In our professional planning opinion, the application maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan so and zoning bylaw is desirable for the appropriate development of the property and is minor in nature. We believe the application satisfies all four tests under section 451 of the planning act and represents good planning. I will now turn it over to Mr. Yousef to speak to the investment and employment opportunities associated with this development and if respectfully he can have additional five minutes although I understand he will probably only need two to three. Perfect. And that would be next slide please. >> Good morning Mr. Um, chairman and respected committee members, uh, my name is Razwan Yusf and I'm the owner of this property, uh, 115, uh, 7 Church Road. I've been living in Hamilton for almost 16 years now. And, um, I've been seeing this land been sitting vacant as far as I remember. And when I purchased this property, my vision was simple. To bring investment to Hamilton, uh, support local businesses and create more jobs. I have invested years of hard work and significant personal finance uh to get to this project where it is right now. [clears throat] And uh early this year when we received the zoning uh certification it indicated that the restaurants are permitted and based on that I moved forward and sold these units and my purchasers who bought it um they have intention to bring cafe uh takeouts and some small restaurants here. Just only recently we learned that um these users may not allowed and this had caused serious uh sort of a delays, financial pressure and uncertainty to my purchasers. The development has a potential to create um 50 to 80 jobs on this location. And I'm not asking honestly for financial uh assistance or special treatment. I'm simply asking to consider what we were originally told and allow us to build this development. And lastly, I just want to say Hamilton is my home. I want to contribute to his growth and not leave another piece of land sitting vacant. So I respectfully ask for your support and thanks for your time. Okay. Sorry. Committee, any questions? Donna. Um, to staff, I I see in ' 05200 under the M3 that a restaurant is a permitted use. I'm just a little concerned or not understanding why this isn't uh allowed. [snorts] >> Good morning. Uh through the chair to the member. I believe we have a member of the zoning team on the online that can respond to that question. Thank you. >> Yeah. Hi, good morning. Uh through the chair um through the committee member to the chair Brody Paul, acting supervisor of zoning east section. Um, so a restaurant is a permitted use in the M3 zone. However, there are sight specific restrictions in the M3 zone that only permit restaurants at specific locations. Um, this is not one of those locations where a restaurant would be a standalone principal permitted use. Um, so basically there's very very specific locations that are permitted in the M3 zone where restaurants so generally they are a permitted use but then they're restricted in terms of where they can actually be specifically. Hence the variance is required in this instance to permit it as a principal use on the property. Happy to answer any other questions though if anyone has any further clarification needed. >> Yes. Um on the verification um notice there it didn't address that. Is that not part of the uh zoning verification? >> I it it should have been unfortunately. Um, so the way the the the regulations read in the zoning ball of the like it's upfront it establishes a permitted use. I think when the zoning examiner reviewed it, they were unaware of the additional sight specific restrictions contained within the regulations that are applicable specifically to restaurants. So that's therefore it wasn't caught at the time of the zoning verification. It was just merely listed as a permitted use which the zone does indicate. But then if you read further there are there are sight specific restrictions that would pro pre prevent it from establishing a lo a restaurant at this location. Subsection S specifically if you uh if you have if you have those the bylaw >> subsection F >> uh S a 9.33 and then subsection F contains the regulations specific to restaurants F essentially permits them on South Service Road in specific locations and on Barton Street in specific locations, but then and then on the north side of Highway 5 and west of Highway 6. So really really sight specific locations and and unfortunately doesn't capture this property within those locations. >> Okay. But that should have been captured on the zoning verification. >> Correct. Yeah. Yep. Correct. It should have been and it wasn't. Yeah. Oh, sorry, Nick. >> Yeah, I'd just like to make a comment here. So, I you know, restaurant restaurants, sorry, could be a permitted ancillary use uh to support the businesses that are going to be in this area. I think, you know, overall this one's on the city. This is uh kind of unfair to the applicant. They were told that uh that it was a permitted use. they went forward and made uh commercial you know contracts and and choices based on the information they were told. Um you know so I think uh in this case I would support approving this application and if I can make a motion I will. >> Okay. I'll just see if there's any other questions. And I tend to agree with the committee member uh because they were they were told and a document stating that you were allowed to do this and and went ahead with some financial uh um in place to go forward with it and then now all of a sudden it's u they're admitting in a mistake but it's at your expense not at their expense. So, um, I tend to agree with Nick on this. Uh, but is there any other questions? >> Robert, >> just to the applicant, when the when we received the package, there was no quote unquote site plan for the property. That caught me off guard. >> Um, through through the chair to the applicant, um, I do recall as part of the package that I submitted that a site plan was included. Um, I did put up an image of the site plan on one of the slides. I'd be happy to go back to that. >> Sorry, I'd have to ask Justin to pull up the presentation. >> Yeah, actually my colleague Ann can do that. Yeah, perfect. I believe Yeah, the application material on the website. I think I believe there is a site plan there. >> Uh, yeah, >> probably on the uh the contact slide. So, that would be the next one. just going forward what other council or committee members have mentioned. >> Thank you. >> I agree that something fell off the table somewhere and I don't think it was on your table based on what I'm what we're seeing what we're understanding. But [clears throat] having said that, without throwing stones, I think it might be a viable business opportunity there, um, with the supporting, you said condos, but the businesses behind and the surrounding area, I think it might it might work. Um, but yeah, I'd still Okay, I see the site plan at the bottom corner now. Okay, >> it's up there. >> Yeah, through the chair to the committee member. Um, that is a rendering of the site plan. Yeah, >> a copy of it. Just a prettier picture of it. >> Obviously focused on the top picture, not >> Yeah, >> understood. I was trying to balance which picture to make larger. >> No, no. >> The So the site plan in in the left bottom corner, it's two two buildings. One of the buildings has approximately six units and the other has four. Uh each unit is approximately 126 square meters. And there's only about 26 parking spaces. And really, as you can see, the size of the development, you would you would you would never be able to accommodate a drive-thru. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um I'd like to make a motion to approve this application, the minor variance. >> Seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. Have a great day. through the chair. Would that include the proposed notes in the staff comments as well? Just want to check. Um, yes. Yeah, there was two proposed notes. Just a building permit is required for the conversion of the proposed restaurant and be advised that the Ontario building code regulations may require specific setback and construction types. >> Yes, with the notes. Okay. All right. Thanks. >> Thank you. uh through the chair. It's now uh just past uh 10:30 a.m. It's 10:36 a.m. Did we want to take a break? >> Yes. >> Okay. 5 minutes. 10 >> 10. Okay. 10-minute break and we will be we will reconvene at 10:46 a.m. Thanks everyone. Okay, it's uh 10:48 a.m. and we're just reconvening now. Um just through the chair um just raising something. Development planning staff were just raising it to me. Uh there was a previous which application was it? It was um they'll ask the planner Tim which one was it again? Uh I believe it was oh yes the Chipoa road. Uh which one was that? Oh, there it is. Um yes, it was for um the consent application B202600210 8155 Chipoa Road East Glamrook. development planning was raising that that application I believe it was approved but there actually is a condition that um development planning was proposing and I don't know if they had they had anything to add to that um the the condition was that that the lands to be severed from 8155 Chipoa Road East be merged with the lands located at 8173 Chipoa Road East to the satisfaction of the director of development planning um I don't know if through the chair chair if that would be okay if it if if the approval reflected would be amended just to reflect that condition as well and you could you could uh raise questions to the development planning staff if you needed to. >> Who who uh who moved and seconded that motion? >> Chipa was uh >> I think I did. >> Mel moved and uh Bob seconded. >> Yeah, I'm in favor of that. So, you're okay? >> Yep. >> Okay. Amending it. Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. And we'll we will let the um >> we will let the applicant know as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Okay. And then returning to our regular schedule. >> Uh >> I think I said with condition >> it is now 10:50 a.m. >> Okay. All right. I have no problem. And we have a minor variance application A2026 00465 135 sorry 135 Trenome Crescent Hamilton and to clarify um and the notice may not have included it. The the owner is actually the city of Hamilton represented by Card No and the applicant is W. Paloney. Um, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in the council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. >> Yes. Uh, good morning. Uh my name is uh Walter Palone and um just to summarize our application here, we are proposing a uh steel canopy structure to be installed uh to provide coverage over the existing Botchi courts. This is for the Botchi Club that's located at the Trenhome Park. And um the the minor uh variance is to permit just a a minor increase to the overall height of our proposed gabled canopy structure. So the maximum building height there is 5 m and we're looking at going about approximately just under 1.5 above that. And uh in terms of the um you know the impact the we we are well you know located well well well enough away from the nearest residential lot and uh we're also surrounded by a wooded lot area so the impact would be minor and I'm just happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Okay. Committee have any questions on this application? Is there a mover? Jonathan, >> I'll make a motion to approve this application >> with second. >> Conditions and notes. >> Okay. >> Okay. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carries. Application approved. Okay. Thank you. Okay, it is now 10:52 a.m. We have a we have a consent application which also has a related minor variance application and as per the the committee of adjustments practice it would be uh generally would be to hear both applications together. Um, so the consent is B20, sorry, B202600378, 313 to 315 Wentworth Street, North Hamilton. Owner is AD Invest Incorporated. Applicants is D. Wolf and agent is Nethery Planning E. Stanley. The minor variance, the related minor variance is A202600377. Same address, same owner, same applicant, and same agent. Um, I do have a note here through the chair. I believe the and correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the applicant was intending to table this application. Uh, is the applicant or agent here? >> Yes, I'm I'm virtual. Um, yeah. Good morning. My name is Emily Stanley with Nether Planning. Um, and I'm the agent on this file and I would just like to make a formal request uh to table the consent and subsequent minor variance application in order for us to um have further conversations with city staff and address their concerns before bringing it back for uh committee consideration. >> Okay. do you have the opportunity to um the only question I had and I know you want a table but the proof of the merger when it happened and and the year and date like that. Um we've had we've had these ones before and um normally we're normally we're in favor of the applicant because the merger happened inadvertently. Um, and probably you have that information or if I'm get that information for planning that that would help a lot. So, >> we can bring forward all of that information. >> Okay. Motion for table. >> I'll make motion to table. >> Mel seconded by Donna. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. >> Uh, and thank you. and um through the chair if there's any members of the public who are here for these applications for this consent and minor variance for 313 to 315 Wentworth Street North Hamilton. The the applications have been tabled or they've been deferred. Um if you wanted further updates on this uh these applications, if you're here in council chambers, do fill out an interested party form. If you're on the WebEx platform, do send us an email. That's cofa@ hamilton.ca. And for the applicant or agent uh staff, the committee of adjustment staff, we will be sending you an email shortly after the meeting just to uh advise you on how on the next steps on how to proceed. Okay, it's now 10:55 a.m. We have a consent and a related minor variance application. So the consent is B202600223125 Mohawk Road East, Hamilton. Owner is a numbered company one 01234426 Ontario Incorporated R. Raheem applicant is Rah Raheem and the agent is Nethery Planning Dandry. The related consent application is A2026 sorry A202600222 the same same address same owner same applicant and same agent. Um, I do have a note here, and again, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the applicant was intending to table these applications. Is the applicant or agent here for this these applications? >> I can also speak to this application. Um, Nether Planning, my name is Emily Stanley. Um, Denise Landrea and I are both the agents on this file. Um again likewise we are looking to table these applications to a subsequent uh committee of adjustment meeting in order to have time to coordinate with staff on concerns. >> Okay. Is there a motion to table >> Robert? Then Donna a second. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application tabled. Okay. Um and again, if there was any members of the public who um were here for these applications, this was a consent and minor variance for uh 125 Mohawk Road East Hamilton. If you want to be uh notified of any updates related to this these applications, if you're here in council chambers, do fill out an interested party form. If you're on web on the WebEx platform, do send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca. and to the applicator agent, we will uh be contacting you. The committee of adjustment staff will be in touch with you after their hearing um just to advise you on next steps on how to proceed. Okay. Okay. It is now 10:57 a.m. We now have a consent application B202600335 14 Rossmore Avenue Hamilton. Owner is G. Noble and applicant is J. Sterling. Um, let me see. Was there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Uh 14 Rossmore Avenue. Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have 5 minutes to speak. Thanks. I live at 94 Ontario Avenue. Um we've been here before um regarding this application. Um and it was it was originally was dis denied. This was just after the cyber attack. Um there were some things that were missing. Um we have found uh um our copies because we originally uh Jim Noble originally applied uh back in 2019 for uh two two units on this property. And um he did get it. I have them here. I included it in my application form when I I made the application. Um, and also it stated that um they knew he was going to be dividing the lot. Since then, Jim has died and now Gordon owns the property. Gordon Noble. Um, and since we found the paperwork, um, we wish to continue on with, um, being able to sever the property. Um, right now, uh, [clears throat] our application for building permit is pending. um the development charges as well as the sewer connection. Other than that, we'll have a building permit to build these two units on this property. Given that, um I I understand that the the lots are very small. Um but as a starter home for somebody uh they would be ideal. Um we do intend to sell one of the lots and retain one of the lots. Um but um I mean even even even if they remained one lot, we'd still have fences uh separating both both uh units. um there would be virtually nothing that would uh prevent them. I mean, they're not going to be sharing land. Um that's basically where we're standing right now. We we do have a building permit pending the last two stages. Um and it's only because we found the paperwork Um the building department was originally going to deny us the right to actually build on the lawn, but we have um a variance on vacation that allows us to irregardless of what um the uh the train yard was going to do and how they affected the property. And I think that was uh that was all part of the uh uh issue with the last application um and why we didn't get it. But um given this light and the fact that we are u really close to actually getting our permit, uh the drawings are all approved. Again, we're just waiting to pay the charges and and to uh and the sewer hookup. And that's basically where where we're at right now. Um, again, we did include the uh the page that was uh stamped and dated by the committee in in 2019 with our application. That's about it. >> Okay. >> Robert, you have a question? Well, the date you just mentioned, you have a copy of an agreement or whatever that was dated in 2019. Does that tell you that there's severance was granted? >> No. No. That allowed the that allowed the building of both of these units on that property. >> Okay. I think that the there was a misconception here of the order which you need to do things. It's either top down or bottom up. And in this case, it's got to be top down. In my opinion, you got to get the the approvals from all the various different departments. And the catch all is the building at the bottom, which you found out that they will not issue a building permit until everything else is done. But I just want to read some comments here that came from the planning staff that I'm not sure if you heard them or read them, but I'm going to go through them again. The application to sever the existing vacant residential lot into two parcels. That's fine. Development planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed severance does not maintain the general intent of the urban Hamilton and the 30 meter buffer for the LRT and/or metro links within this area. Corridor development permit is required from Metroinks to permit the construction of any building or structure on the it's in the official plan. Um, the proposed laws do not satisfy policy F11431A regarding the introduction of the additional sensitive land use adjacent to the railway line and within 150 m of a railard. Based on all that above, the development planning staff are of the opinion the proposed severance does not maintain the general intent of the urban official plan. and they've come back recommending deny. >> I read that. >> Okay, that's great. But that's that those items there, >> okay, so >> are not going away. It's not like a minor variance. You want 2 m instead of 2.5 or whatever. This we can't change. So [snorts] >> I understand there are some issues with the property. However, um we are getting a building permit. There's no question about that. the regardless of the 30 m because we did this before Metroinks. And if you check with the city of Hamilton building department, we handed in a letter from Metroinks approving it. >> Responded to >> What do you mean who responded? The building department? I don't know. >> Wow. >> I I don't know. Unfortunately, they're they are going to go back and go through it to make sure all the boxes are checked off. >> It I have the letter. >> I handed it into the building department. They have the letter. They have a copy of the letter and I don't know why they're denying it. Or maybe they're not because no one's asked them the question. >> But Metro Links approved it. But that the issue at hand right now is the severance in front of us. The severed in two lots >> based on based on what's come back to us that the recommendation is to deny the application for severance. >> I I I can't say much to that. I I really can't. uh either they don't have the right information or they're denying it anyway. But either way, Metro thinks approved it. >> Talk to the building department. I I can't believe the building department doesn't have anybody here representing this. I mean, they didn't last time. I have a question in regards to the this building permit that you have or received in 2019. Um, was that to build on the property as it is or is it to build on the saying you got the land severed? Did you get approval for a building on both of these properties or just on the existing? We got a a building uh we got the approval for again in 2019 we got the approval to build two semi- detached houses on one parcel of land. >> Okay. So that has nothing to do like you're saying that you got a building permit. Well, yes, you got a building permit for one property. We're looking at severing it into two properties. So, we can't even look at a building permit for one property because you want it severed. So, we're looking basically at do we want to sever it? Um, and with the information that we have and with staff's recommendation, it is saying that no, it doesn't fit within the for the framework of um getting a uh a proper severance. You got one property here that only has about a 15 16 foot width frontage. >> Yeah, I understand that. But that's >> But [clears throat] once we pay the development charges and get our building permit, that's not going to change the building. There'll still be two units on the same property and we're still going to put a fence down the middle of it. >> Right. So, >> but you have to get the severance first before you can even look at anything. >> I don't need the severance for for the building permits >> to build these two houses. I'm >> sure you do. >> No, I don't. >> Well, then >> and and even if I did, that's why I'm here anyway. >> Mhm. >> And without a >> I'm allowed to build more than one unit on the property. >> In all due respect, >> Okay. So, can >> just just hang on a minute. With all due respect, with the information that we have here and the information you're referring to in those notes, I would strongly recommend you hire a planner, a professional planner to to do the research and dig in further. >> Dig in further or what? I supplied everything to you. >> And if you can't see that, I'm sorry. >> I can't. You You want me to >> You want me to wait until I actually get the permit? One of you wants to wait until I get the permit to apply. >> You will not get a permit. >> Yeah, I will. >> Yeah. For one land. >> I I I will for one piece of land. I'll get a building building permit for two houses on it. >> Okay. And all I want is to separate them eventually >> so that you're not going to stop the development. There's nothing you can do to stop the development. It was already approved. >> Okay. >> 2019. >> 2019 is >> okay. So just >> Okay. Just just this happened a long time ago and I realize that. But since then, the the previous owner who started this died and the property went into probate. That took time. Eventually, Gordon [snorts] Noble ended up owning the property and now we're back on track to do something with it >> away from what it is because we can't deal with the building permit or whether you can build the land on. You can ask department we are just looking at whether we want we approve that this severance to go through. So it's you know it's here neither here nor there whether you can build on one piece of property or two pieces. So I think the the application in front of us needs to be addressed and um >> this is the same thing. Mr. Sterling please let let the committee speak first and then if they want that you can respond. Okay. Thank you. >> And if there's no other questions, I I have a >> I just want to to give planning a chance to >> to >> um have a couple of comments on on the debate that's going on right now. >> Uh David Boner, planning technician with West Development. Um through the chair, the just for some background so that things can be a bit clearer. Um the variance decision that was attached with the submission was from 2018 file 2019 decision I believe was the date. Um there are variances that were tied to the built form for what the previous zoning bylaw calls a two family dwelling. The built form is a semi- detached. uh zoning's comments seem to indicate that there might be a process-wise if it's severed before the buildings are created, they might need additional variances under the old bylaw. Um, my understanding of things is that based on those variances in the old bylaw and the transition clause of zoning bylaw 05200, the current bylaw, they could and have gotten a building permit or they're in the process of getting a building permit for the semi for the buildings. the the issue at hand is not the use per se, it's the lot creation. Um there are policies in the urban Hamilton official plan that require um in in this case due to the proximity to both the rail line and the shunting yard to the west uh a noise and vibration study to fully satisfy the lock creation policies. Um we haven't gotten any studies or information to that regard similar to when this was originally heard last year. So staff's position on the lot creation has not changed. Um we have included it as a condition if it is approved to cover bases. Um but the the fundamental issue still remains the same of it doesn't meet the policy. So staff can't recommend approval for the severance. But with regards to the building permit, they have the transition clause and the approved variances for the built form on on one lot. Okay. So, what's in front of us, as Donna had stated, is this severance of of the lot, not of the uh building permit. Um, and so that's what planning is is, you know, they're recommending denial because this is just a severance. It's not the building permit. Um >> I understand that >> the building permit um issues aren't aren't in front of us or aren't for us to deal with. All we're dealing with is is what's in front of us today and that's this severance of of the property. So sorry >> once once we we start construction the buildings are going to look exactly how we designed them. There won't be any difference, no variations, nothing. They'll both be on the same lot. All we want to do is divide the law. I don't think that will make a difference to the buildings moving forward. Um they we do have someone interested in one of the one of the lots and we do know about the noise study that we're prepared to do that. I anticipated that although the building department hasn't asked for it yet. Um, but it actually won't one way or the other it the the lot separation will not change the look of the development at all. It will just allow someone access to the housing market that may not be eligible any other way. These are small houses on small lots. >> Well, the lot does does change the uh the square footage of of a building envelope for that smaller property. >> We've and we've when we put them through the building department, we noted the size of the lots and they knew going forward what we were doing. So, we have the opportunity here to to allow you to table if you wish um to see if you can get favorable or more favorable comments from planning um or um you know the recommendation from planning is denial. So I guess you know we give you that opportunity that if you wish to to table at this time we can do that or if you don't want to table then um I'll ask the committee for a for a motion. >> I I I have no choice but to table. >> Okay. >> Because obviously this committee just does not have the information to make an informed decision. >> Okay. And I don't know why that is. >> Okay. >> All right. So, your wishes are to table and so I will call for a motion to table. >> I'll make a motion to table. >> Donna made the motion seconded by Nick. All in favor of table. Opposed to table. One opposed. So the motion is carried and application is tabled. All right. Thank you. >> Sorry. Uh thank you and through the chair to the applicant or agent um the committee of adjustment staff will be in touch with you shortly after the meeting on how to proceed. Um >> yeah and if there was anyone here uh any members of the public who are here for this application 14 Rossmore Avenue if you wanted to be provided updates on this application if you're here in council chambers do fill out an interested party form or if you're on WebEx you can u send us an email at co cofa@ hamilton.ca. Okay thank you. Um [sighs] now it's now 11:18 a.m. Uh we now have a consent application B2026 00356 22 Canon Street East Hamilton. Owner is Rogue Roofing and Sheet Metal Limited Croke. Applicant is the same uh company and the agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants M. Johnston, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application, whether here in council chambers or on WebEx? Okay, seeing nonetheless, the applicant or agent, please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Stephano Rosaton and I'm a planner with Urban Solutions. Uh here with my colleague, Matt Johnston, and we're the registered agents working on behalf of the owners. Uh we have read the staff report and agree with staff's recommendations to approve with conditions and I'll happily forego my presentation and uh get things moving along. >> Thank you. Uh available for any questions you might have. >> Okay. >> Other words, you're happy with all the conditions and of the application. >> That's correct. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve with all conditions. >> Okay. Moved by Mal, second by Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. Okay. >> Thank you very much. through the chair. Was it Nick seconded? Yeah. >> Uh, no. Uh, Robert second. >> Robert. Mel moved and and Robert second. Okay. Approved with conditions. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. It's now 11:20 a.m. Uh, moving on. We have a we have a consent and a related minor variance application. And again, the committee's practice is to hear both of them together. Um so yeah, so the consent is B202600398 19 to 21 Malberry Street Hamilton. Owner is Rogue Roofing and sheet metal li Limited Croke. Applicant is the same company. Agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants M. Johnston. The minor the related minor variance is A202600399. Uh same address, same owner, same applicant and same agent. Uh is there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether it be here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Okay. Seeing none, uh applicant or agent, uh please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Good morning members of committee, staff, and the public. Matt John Austin, registered professional planner with Urban Solutions. And I do have a brief presentation. Appreciate the positive staff report. There's just two conditions of approval I'd like to touch on. Thank you. Uh, next slide. This application really started with the onset of the previous it was just approved and in working towards that application it was realized that the subject lands 19 and 21 Malbury had merged on title. Uh we'll just sail through the next two real quick. We've got the official plan framework the zoning. Um and if we go to the next uh slide after that. Uh one more here you can see a a photo of the subject lands. Essentially we've got three town houses in a row. Again 19 and 21 have merged on title. Um the next sketch shows our proposed severance. The next slide after that illustrates the required variances to facilitate the severance. We do note that there's some language in the staff report that talks about a correction for the lot frontage being uh being 5.3 m not 5.4 m. So just want to ensure that that gets carried through in the ultimate decision but that was acknowledged uh in the zoning comments. So the applications themselves certainly um satisfy the four tests of the planning act and uh the consent to sever uh appropriate uh development of the subject lands. What we want to just talk about quickly is shown on the uh uh two slides. One is condition six which requires zoning compliance review. Um we've been in conversations with uh zoning staff in advance of today's meeting and the relationship between condition five and six are so similar that condition five will do the job and um I believe Mr. Savverof is uh in support of that request in here today. Then secondly, um if we go to the next slide, uh sorry, a little bit of catch up. One more, one more after that. And here we go. Is uh condition number seven, uh speaks to uh demonstrating independent servicing. And uh this is a condition that's often applied in the old parts of town when you're severing merged lots. And um what we do know is that the subject lands have separate bills, separate uh water meters and um this condition really itself is just a little rather ownorous uh for the purpose of reestablishing lot lines. On the screen here, we have an application that I was involved in uh just back in uh April of 2025 where the same committee um reestablished a severance for merged townhouse um just east of hearing towards Corktown and uh committee agreed that that condition was a little bit ownorous considering what was on the table and they wave that condition. So that's my request today is that uh condition six be waved with a a bit of overlap on the zoning compliance and condition seven be waved with regards to uh proof of independent services uh given um the minor nature of the request to reestablish old lot lines on a merge property. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions. Okay, committee, >> you're okay with the Okay, Robert. >> So, the on the conditions five and six, what are you proposing? Keep one, keep both, eliminate both. >> I am proposing that five remain and six be removed. >> Okay. >> And that's in uh on consent with zoning staff. >> Okay. So, six and seven. >> And seven. Um, I think we need to refer to engineering on that. >> Helen MacArthur, senior engineer, development west. Um, we've been very consistent in applying the independent service in accordance with the bylaw. Each property needs its independent services and that's to comply with the bylaw. through the chair. I would agree that um the the proposed condition is one that or the the requested condition by engineering staff uh routinely comes forward with these types of consents in the old city in the old parts of the city. Um, you know, if we were proposing lots, we certainly know on a new build, we would we would be delivering independent servicing. When we're just looking to reestablish merged lot lines, there's no physical change happening uh to the properties otherwise. um you know the the additional cost to move through conditions of approval to demonstrate that uh is what's rather ownorous uh given what we're asking today is just to clean up uh the title for uh inadvertent merger and like I said uh back in April uh we made the same pitch on a similar merger and uh committee supported that ask and wave the condition um for uh an application on Ford Street just east of city hall here uh just over a year ago. Was hoping for that consistent approach on uh the request. Um I'd just like to add a comment. Um I have had a personal experience with homes of this age and I would definitely not support taking number seven out because I do see the value there. Anyone else? >> Just to just to add to the comment there that those houses are probably 1930s, 1940s, maybe 41. >> Yeah. And we who knows what the underground piping is like to utilize the existing. So I agree we should leave condition seven in and go forward. >> So just remaining u uh the six. >> Yeah. Eliminate six. It's replaced technically by five. It's they're both the same. And leave seven in >> through the chair. Not to not to beat a dead horse here, but um in my presentation I included one example uh that was shown on the screen. Um but it's it's one where um again it's it's just the inadvertent merger where the age of the home is is the age of the home. There's no other existing condition being changed out there. Um so you know to to go through the administrative step to reestablish the lot line you know ought to be a little bit smoother when we're again not proposing any physical changes. Everyone's got adequate service. Uh everyone's getting their their bills from the city adequately. Um there's there's really no change happening that would warrant uh just the additional burden of of going through that step. So, um, that'll be my last pitch and, uh, again, just hoping for a consistent approach given previous waiverss of the same condition. So, it's up to the committee. I mean, I can understand your your reasoning for what has happened in the past and and things [clears throat] change. Um, it gives the the city the opportunity to verify or make sure that they do have separate services or whatever and that they are up to date. Um but it's a committee decision on that uh removing condition. Uh seven >> I would like to make a motion to approve with removing condition six and all other conditions or notes are to be included. Is there a seconder for that motion? Robert, all in favor of the motion opposed. That's a tie vote. I'll break the tie when >> Oh, you get three. >> I'll call the that again. So opposed two and Mel I must have missed your arm for Okay. Sorry. So the motion is is carried. >> Sorry. Application um is approved with only um number six being removed. Oh, and I think I would like to add make it for both applications as well. And then the second one would be for variances one and two. >> Okay, it's good for the secondary. >> If I could just ensure that the um the variance is is corrected as identified in the staff report, not the notice to 5.3 meters of frontage. Just want to ensure that's captured as well. Thank you. Okay. Yes, through the chair and if that's okay. Yes, there was a uh the staff did ra and I believe in the uh um the zoning comments did raise the potential need to slightly change the variance requests and if that is okay with the committee that you can approve that variance uh the variance according to that was there sorry through the chair was there a motion you need a motion for that? Okay. >> Yeah. Motion Donna seconded by Yolan and all in favor. >> Was there anyone? >> No. Okay. And that's carried. Okay. So again, just reiterating. Yes. The uh the minor variance application was approved with the removal of condition six. And with the minor variance, it was approved um with the uh the amendment to the variance requests as proposed by staff. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. It is now 11:32 a.m. We have a consent application B25034, 461 Kitty Murray Lane, Ancaster. The owner is a numbered company 13 1 333664 Ontario Incorporated M. Val Valvasauri. Applicant is the same company and then the agent is Urban Solutions Planning and Land Development Consultants uh M. Johnston. Was there any members of the public wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Um yeah, seeing and uh yeah, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant agents to step forward and provide their name and they'll have five minutes to speak. And just through the chair, just to just to reiterate to the committee, this is actually a request to change the conditions as part of a consent application. Thank you. >> Good morning again, members of committee, uh staff, public, Matt Johnston, uh registered professional planner with urban solutions. Uh I do have a brief slide deck to help uh carry the conversation if we could share that on the screen. I do want to acknowledge Mr. Valvasuri who's in attendance this morning and also my colleague Matthew Leblanc who was here not too long ago in front of committee and um again I'll just get uh a brief overview of um where we've been in in our ask today. So, if we can go to the next slide, we have the subject lands uh really in the south end of the meadowlands on the east side of Kitty Murray, a little north of uh Garner Road, directly across from Immaculate Conception Elementary School. Subject lands actually um used to extend all the way east well into uh the townhouse subdivision uh Belffort Terrace or or the bungalows of Ancaster as they're called. um and that was severed off to accommodate that development. And now what we have on the next slide is uh the approved uh severances and variances that was uh considered by the committee back on September 17th of this year. Um creating uh four individual lots and again that application was approved. Uh you may recall a discussion regarding um conditions of approval uh that were requested to turn into notes. Um if we go to the next slide, it's the um the archeological assessment that was a recommended condition of approval and our ask at the time was to turn that into the standard archeological note that often accompanies infill severances. Um in the presentation there was a pretty thorough discussion on uh the committee's appreciation to only require the archeological assessment uh if required through findings uh throughout construction. Um ultimately what the committee did was add the language if required to the condition uh thinking that that might provide sort of the relief that we were after. But um if we go to the next slide, I have the actual note that we're looking to include rather than the condition. And uh it's rather lengthy, but I really just want to zero in on what's highlighted in blue because I think what's highlighted in blue accomplishes what members of the committee were trying to um ensure happened while giving some relief to the proponent. So within the archeological note we have the requirement if our archeological resources are encountered the proponent may be required to conduct an archeological assessment prior to further impact. Uh later on should deeply buried archeological materials be found there's a process they're obligated to uh to go down. If we go to the next slide, um, and you know, I'll I'll go one further. I've explained much of this slide here. Um, again, we've got some previous approvals on slide seven, which is next, which uh indicate a number of previous examples where that standard archeological condition gets turned into a note upon request. um a slew of examples. Uh the last one most recently uh on 27 road is illustrated on the next slide and you can see the comparables here. We've got the subject lands on the right. Much of it has been developed with the uh town houses in the rear in that previous severance. We've got the existing dwelling garage, septic bed, a whole lot of disturbance uh smack dab in the middle of the middlelands. um very similar to Seven Road which is uh just over on the mountain uh where that request was made to turn the archeological condition into a note. Again, we're looking to support um and and provide an easier path for uh gentle intensification like the project proposed and things like this can really slow things down and burden the proposal. So we kindly ask and the the purpose of coming back was to kind of clarify some of the discussion because I think it was really the will of the committee to try to provide some relief on on it but it just sort of missed the mark. So uh we're here today again to ask uh the and I'll show the final slide that condition 9 be removed from the staff report and replaced with the standard archeological note. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Committee. I mean, as in the past, as you stated, there's been lots of opportunities or lots of times when we have put that condition in as a note and not uh comments from committee. Can I get a comment from staff on the the applicant's um proposal? They use the wording from the previous application. Personally myself, I'm very concerned, not concerned, but the fact that we're, you know, it's being requested. When you look at all the development area all the way around the existing site, um I think it goes above and beyond, but that's just my opinion. So staff could comment on changing the ver verbiage around >> Dun planning technician uh through the chair to the committee member um at a high level uh development planning position is that to ensure full compliance with all applicable policies in the urban capital official plan. uh the archaeological assessments required prior to site alteration or soil disturbance when that is anticipated. Um I believe a member of culture heritage planning is online to answer any more technical or detailed questions but the essentially our our recommendation is to deny the the requested change of conditions to ensure that the approval complies with all policies. >> Okay. Go ahead on on the web. >> Sorry, having a little trouble. Can everyone hear me? >> Okay. Yes. >> Good morning. Scott Dickinson, Cultural Heritage Planning. Uh, yes. This property meets uh sufficient criteria under the u under the province to be considered of having archeological potential which is why we provided the condition on the initial application back in September. We would still consider that best practice would be to require an archaeological assessment be completed before the property well before any construction grading or demolition on the property be uh be completed. If it was the committee's intent to remove this condition, then um then staff would be then staff would recommend that it would be the acknowledgement note as requested by the by the applicant instead of trying to change the language within the condition. So through the chair, last time round the committee added if required as an attempt to alleviate the the burden. Um now as we we've just heard and identified in the staff report, the subject lands hit three of 10 criteria. Just three of 10. Um, when we talk about the the need to ensure that the policies are are respected and and conformity too, I do want to highlight I' I'm looking at chapter B, section 3 of the official plan that speaks specifically to to when archeological assessments are required and B3443 requires archeological assessments on official plan, zoning, and plans of subdivision. Then you move on to 3 444 and it changes the language with intent. Archeological assessments may be required for minor variances and consents. So that that ability to to make a judgment call when we know that more than half the lands were severed to accommodate the townhouse development in the rear that a vast majority of the site has been disturbed with the erection of the existing home septic bed uh detached uh workshop. um you know the this would be one of those appropriate times to rely on the word May and um and turn that condition into the standard note in keeping with um something the committee has done on uh a number of occasions. So the one you referred to that we did previously um Saver Street or whatever it was, right, >> that became a note, >> right? >> And did we add if required or maybe or whatever the term >> the through the chair the note itself has that that if required element embedded in in the language. >> So it's it's not just moving the condition to a note. the note is actually worded differently than the condition in a way that provides that that assurance. >> I'm going to put a motion forward to approve the uh change and moving the number 15 from a condition to the uh to the note with your wording >> and through the chair. It was uh condition nine >> on the staff report. >> Pardon? >> Condition nine on the staff report. >> Sorry, condition nine. Yeah. >> Okay. Is there a seconder for that motion? Robert. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion is carried. Application is approved. Thank you. Okay. Moving. Um, it is now 11:44 a.m. Next, we have a consent application B202600384, [snorts] 83 Sanford Avenue South, Hamilton. Uh, owner is at W.'s Zusco and the agent is E. reporter. Uh, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on or on the WebEx portal? Seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Are they here? 83 Sanford Avenue South. Is there someone here? Oh, hello. >> I believe Ebony Trent. Is is that you? >> Yes. Yes, that's me. Yeah. I represent the owner, William Zuko. And um I just wanted to defer to the next meeting so that we can speak to both matters at the same time for the severance and the variance. >> Okay. So we'll make a motion for table. Robert and Mal seconded. All in favor of table. Opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Application is tabled. >> And sorry, who moved that motion? Sorry. >> Mel moved it. >> Mel and then >> Robert seconded it. Okay. Uh and thank you. And we will be um through the chair to the to the applicant to the agent. We will be in touch with you uh in terms of next steps on how to proceed. Um, and just in case if there was any members of the public here for this application, 83 Sanford Avenue, sorry, 83 Sanford Avenue South Hamilton, this application has been tabled or it's been deferred. Um, if you wanted uh further updates on the application, uh, if you're here in council chambers, do fill out an interested party form or if you're on the WebEx platform, do send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca. Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. Moving on. [clears throat] It is now 11:46 a.m. We have a minor variance application A202600188 161 Annabel Street, Hamilton. Owner is PBondo and CBondo. Um yeah, owners P Beyondo and C Beyondo, applicant is P Beyondo and agent is S Beyond Beyond. Um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in [clears throat] council chambers or on the WebEx platform? Okay, seeing none, I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward. Please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. Thank you. >> Hi, good morning. My name is Philip Byondi and I am the applicant here with my agent and father Sandro Beyond for the application of a minor variance at 161 Annabel Street to exceed the allowable height for my detached garage. We are back here after the uh variance was tabled over concerns of the total height. Uh we met with the planning department at your recommendation and work to lower the height by over a meter by changing the slope of the roof significantly. We are hoping that in doing so we have fulfilled the requirements for approval today. Thank you. >> Well, >> after you make the addition, the change in the roof, I'll make a motion to approve. >> Okay. Moved by Mel, seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, it is now 11:48 a.m. Next, we have a consent application. A2 A202600452 1021 Concession 6 West Lamborough owner is M. Pellerin and S. Pellerin and applicant is the same two people. Uh, through the chair, just uh for the committee's reference, the this application uh was actually tabled prior to the it's it was tabled or deferred prior to the meeting. As such, the uh the committee will not be handled will not be hearing this matter today. So, if there's anyone here for this application, 1021 concession 6 West Flamro, um it's been it it was already tabled. And if you have if you want to get updates on the application if you're here in council chambers, do fill out an interested party form or if you're on the WebEx platform, uh do uh send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca. And I do want to clarify actually um there's two previous applications. It was for 125 Mohawk Road East Hamilton. It was a consent and minor variance. Um they actually were tabled prior to the the meeting. Um but I did actually I I didn't note that unfortunately, but the but conver but the committee conversely you did move to to table that application. Just wanted to clarify there. Okay. Um, okay. It's now 11:49 a.m. Next, we have a minor variance application. Uh, A2026 0044 565 Sanatorium Road, Hamilton. Owner is a numbered company 23587 sorry 2358574 Ontario Limited Hakeime applicant is the same company and then the agent is Weston Consulting M Cara Copomy um are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this application whether here in council chambers or on the WebEx platform okay seeing none I'll ask the applicant or agent please step forward please provide your name and you have five minutes to speak. >> Good morning, members of committee. Mr. Chair, can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Great. Good morning. Uh my name is Martin Barker with Weston Consulting. I am a registered professional plan with Weston and I am here on behalf of the land owner uh to speak to applicate this application at 565 Sanatorium Road. I do have some prepared notes here should the committee want to hear a bit more about the application, but I would like to say that I've read staff reports. I have no concerns with the recommendations and I do agree that this application should be approved. Um, so I'll keep things rather quick. Um, but that is my presentation and again I'm here for further questions or should there be additional information requested. Okay, committee. Any questions? Motion. Donna, >> let's see. >> Seconded by Nick. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried. Application approved. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Next, uh, it's now 11:52 a.m. We have a consent application B2026 00441 353 Concession 11 East Flamro. Owner is a number company 13811522 Canada Incorporated. TBU applicant is the same company and the agent is Landwise C. Simpson. Um I just I would just note uh that the staff were uh recommending to table the application. Uh I just wanted to check with the uh applicant or agent first if they were how they were they intending to proceed today or or or uh >> Hi, I'm online. Can you hear me? >> Yes, go ahead. Not yet. We're uh we would like to proceed with tableabling the application. >> Okay. Okay. Is there a motion now? Seconded by Yanuka. All in favor? Opposed? Seeing none. Motion carried and application is tabled. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And through the chair to the uh to the agent we uh staff the CFA the committee of adjustment staff will be in touch with you shortly after the meeting on how to proceed with the application. And uh just to reiterate, if there was any members of the public here for this application, uh 353 concession 11 East Flamro, the application has been tabled or deferred. Um if you want any further updates on the application, if you're here in council chambers, do fill out an interested party form. Um if you're on the WebEx platform, do um send us an email at cofa@ hamilton.ca. And uh just want to check was there uh to the CFA staff here. Was there one more application today? >> Oh, that was okay. Okay. So, uh Okay. With that, I believe uh that concludes the applications to be heard at this uh today's committee of adjustment meeting. Uh we'll move into chair and staff announce. Sorry. Hi. Were you here for an application? >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, we'll be in Yeah, if it was table, we'll be in touch with you, the [clears throat] staff. Okay. All right. Thanks. Um yes, we're just moving to chair and staff updates. Uh I don't know if the chair yet had anything. >> Uh just so just one question. And I was um curious on the fact that when we um table an application >> Mhm. >> if planning recommends tableabling >> um is there still a fee for recirculation >> like when an applicant >> asks to be tabled? >> Yes, >> there's a there's a fee. It depends on the circumstance and I don't know if uh Ann or Ryan you can I know we do have a document we do have a policy in place um let me just take a look at it here. So uh if the application is tabled and there are changes to the application then a recirculation fee is applied. Um if an application it was recently tabled within the last 2 months and there are no changes um uh there would be no uh recirculation fee um if it's an older application more than two months with no changes uh then we might we would apply a fee. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I didn't have any updates. I don't know if Emily has anything else to add. >> Our next meeting date Okay. Our next one is and again Ryan or Anna please correct me. I believe it's no if I'm wrong it's November 19th. Yeah. And if we through the chair if we can have a motion to adjurnn please. >> Yes. Motion to adjourn. Nick seconded. Donna. All in favor? No question. Okay. [laughter] So we're adjourned at 11:56 a.m. and